wow.. just wow..

You say you agree...

yet you continue to assert that there are such things as "thought crimes" and "speak [sic] crimes"

Really??

When was the last time you read the First Amendment?

Holy Jesus! That was one freaking BIG great white!

You, apparently, are not familiar with the premise of freedom of speech..

There is NOT SUCH THING as a THOUGHT CRIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not in this country.. Maybe in Stalinist Russia, there may be.. But NOT here!

Don't you get it??

You can dislike Rush or anyone else all you like.. But your dislike of their way of thought is not tantamount to a crime..

Our minds are the last bastion of freedom.. Once it becomes a crime to think a thought, all is lost.

You like it in this case because you agree with those that would silence Rush. Wait until that is not the case and your smarmy little smile won't be nearly as wide.

Wait until someone thinks your thoughts are declared subversive and it's declared that you cannot engage in this free enterprise or that. Then perhaps you'll think better of the Stalinistic stance.

Bleeping Facists!!!

Plaxico Burress carried a loaded pistol into a NY nightclub, a violation of a good many laws. When he gets out, the NFL will hire him back.

Michael Vick was convicted of promoting anf fuding an illegal dog fighting ring. He's been allowed back into the NFL.

I could name you a couple dozen players in the NFL who have been arrested and convicted of spousal abuse and domestic voilence..

NFL players have been convicted of drug trafficking and possession. Yet, they're allowed back into the league to play.

Where's your outrage for the actual crimes they've committed and been allowed to play?

The media convicted Rush Limbaugh of "Thought Crime", a development all Americans should be very concerned about..

That's not how we do things here in America, you facist!

Here we have the "presumption of innocence"

It's part of due process. You can't just level an allegation at someone and proclaime them guilty in absence of proof to the contrary..

Why don't you prove that he said whatever it is to which you take offence.

And aside from the presumption of innocence, we also have this thing called "freedom of speech", freedom of expression.

You're essentially convicting the man of a thought crime.

And punitively prohibiting him from engaging in free enterprise as a private citizen on account of him saying something (even though he really didnt) that offends someone.

Did I miss where all the Rush-haters acknowledged that all the people in the media came back and admitted that all those race-baiting quotes that they had attributed to Rush were all made up? that they were false? that they all had cited someone else's writing about Rush rather than Rush himself?

Did I miss that?

So I guess it's ok to slander someone in the media and cause an uproar on made up "facts" about someone and end up denying them to engage in a legal enterprise..

I just want to make sure I know what America I'm living in..

Is it the America where what a certain group of people think someone believes is more important than what that person is actually on record as saying?

Did everyone else miss the utter irony in the media who claimed Rush said all those things (but didn't) derided Rush for saying that "Even if Obama didn't say it, we know he believes it" and then played you his own words where he expressed that very opinion??

Just checking..

blood of tyrrants and patriots

nevermind.. I can't get that link to work

but go to cnn.com and do a search for "chamber of commerce" and look for the video of two idiots on either side of the screen

it's 9 minutes 8 seconds long..

so research away, mighty researcher

oh.. well.. huffington post..

that's where I go for unbiased reporting.. yeah..

you know, for someone who claims to do all this independent research, I guess it never dawned on you to go to cnn.com and search "chamber of commerce", did it?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/10/21/nr.sanchez.commerce.prank.cnn

It's amazing how easily entertained you are..

what have I told you about using the word "prove"??

What it shows is that the so-called "straight news" media are slanted and biased.

I just watched a 9 minute "interview" of the guy that pulled the "prank" and he was Rick Sanchez was talking to him as if he were really someone worth talking to..

Turns out the group he's with, the yes men, have pulled other "pranks" in the past.. They held a press conference pretending to be represntative of the DOW Chemical group in which they claimed responsibility for a chemical spill in India. The, thankfully temporary, result of the press conference was to cause a precipitous drop in the stock price of DOW chemical. Why the Securities and Exchange Commision hasn't buried these people under a prison is beyond me..

I wasn't refering strictly to you but even if I was, it still holds true. You consider anything that doesn't conform to your view of things to be irrelevant and illegitimate..

So you don't watch any of those news networks?

Yet, miraculously, you know everything there is to know about how "biased" and "unbalanced" fox is.. and how "legitimate" all the others are...

please. does your absurdity know no bounds?

Where, then, do you get your "news"? The huffington post? the daily kos? oh, wait.. the smirking chimp.. right?

They just told what happened and showed the clips from CNN. What? did they fabricate the CNN newsflash?

Don't think so..

The Ontario Star wrote a peice on it.

You can find stories in the Washington Post on this..

but actually going and finding out is just so much harder than just throwing up some blurb about how some source isn't reliable, isn't it?

CNN actually interviewed the guy and gave him air time to spew his rhetoric..

I guess it's news if CNN says it is..

Then by that rationalle, why do the Obama/DNC propaganda networks like ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC etal, not have to abide to the same standard? They are slanted waaaaay left..

Dan Rather, anyone?

They just get to make up stories and call it news.. If you have a problem with Fox because they tend to show the conservative take one things, then you need to take the same offense to those others for doing the same..

But you don't.. why? because the CNN's and NBC's tell you what you want to hear. And you accept it as true because its conformable with your worldview.. plain and simple..

But Foxruns counter to your worldview and the positions of the DNC, so they're exscoriated for it..

methinks someone protests quite loudly..

And you're right, Moose.. Straight ticket voting is a real issue as evidenced by the respondent above.

Well, then your family members examples of the ones that the Justice Department is talking about..

You'd vote for Satan if he had a (D) next to his name and not only would you never know it, you'd probably feel good about it because you "voted Democrat"

You don't get it, I guess.. The voter decided overwhelmingly to eliminate party affiliation in local races..

It was the Justice Dept that stepped in and decided to overrule the will of the voters and inject race into the issue, not me or the media, by asserting that whites would only vote for a black candidate if they belonged to the Democrat party.. So in order to protect the election and re-election of Democrat candidates, the Justice Department stepped in.. plain and simple.


************************************



So not only are you admitting that politics are involved in decisions coming out of the Justice Department, but you are asserting that "down the board" voters need to be protected from their own laziness and political ignorance..

Down-the-board voting is part of the problem, on either side.. People should elect candidates based on the issues and not strictly on what party they belong to..

I thought Obama was going to usher in a new era of "post-partisan politics".. I guess it's only post partisan if you goose step to the Demoncrat party drums..

Tapper better watch out or he'll get the John Stossell treatment..